Review (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ajtata/2009/12/03/review-going-rogue-reveals-palins-ready-to-lead/)

By Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata

When I got about halfway through the book I set it down, stepped outside of my Washington, DC townhouse and went for a run around the U.S. Capitol. Listening to the Outlaws, Marshall Tucker Band, and Lil Bow Wow (my daughter slipped that one in there) on my iPod, the recurrent thought in my mind was that this woman is far more qualified to be president of the United States than the current occupant of the White House.
When I completed the journey that is Going Rogue, I wrote down five things:

–She is a positive role model for all Americans
–She is an executive, takes on hard problems and makes tough decisions
–She has tremendous energy, balance and intellect
–America shafted itself in this last election
–Alaska is lucky to have her

Oh, and a sixth, Sarah Palin could be the next president of the United States.

Her book washes away all doubts that any reader might have had about her readiness to be president. She comes across as exceptionally bright, dedicated, and passionate about public service. Her moral compass is strong, pointing true North in this case. And she has a wicked sense of humor.

The most salient take-away from Going Rogue for me was what I admired most in her campaign, which was that she had been in charge as either a mayor or a governor whereas none of the other candidates on either ticket had. Having been a commander several times in the military I know that there is a huge difference between being a hardworking and important staff officer and an ‘alone at the top’ commander. No matter how fancy the title, executive officer or Senator, at the end of the day, you are recommending to someone who actually makes the decision.

As a Governor, mayor or commander, you have the unparalleled responsibility to actually make decisions that have ramifications. There is little training that can prepare you for all those heads turning in your direction when it is decision time. You can’t blithely abstain on a vote or hide behind the guy in front of you, because you own the decision. Case in point is Obama’s inexcusable delay in making a decision on Afghanistan. His indecision, cloaked as ‘sleeves-rolled-up-pensiveness’, is an indicator that he was, at a minimum, unprepared to be commander in chief. What we see in his speech at West Point is a minimally slimmed down version of what General Stan McChrystal submitted to the president on August 30th. So now big Stan has nine months to do what he said it takes 12 months to accomplish.

Palin, on the other hand, demonstrates decisiveness and vulnerability. Is she prepared for the enormous breadth of responsibility of president? I think she’s ready for the hard part, which is making tough decisions. She’s no “Ruminator-in Chief”, that’s for sure, and if the American people think a second year back bench senator was ready to be president, I’m not sure we’ve got the right rubric out there.

Palin is real. She takes counsel of her fears and continuously comes back to her foundation of family, God, state and nation for reassurance and guidance. She has strong moral guideposts that she uses to navigate the shark infested political waters. Reading about the decisions Sarah Palin faced at multiple levels of government reminded me of something my command sergeant major in the 82nd Airborne Division used to say when we faced a tough decision together: “Sir, when you’re right, don’t worry about it.”

Palin is right on many issues such as energy policy, defense, business, and size of government. She gets it and my hope is that she firms up her base and then reaches out to moderates across this country. She has a gritty determination borne in the salmon hauls and caribou hunts that make her pioneer tough.

I am left wondering why the McCain campaign bottled her up and didn’t let the maverick, well, be a maverick. McCain made an unconventional pick and instead of hiring a Wall Street stockbroker to manage her I’m perplexed, and disappointed, that he didn’t let this one-woman campaign juggernaut do her thing. If she was accustomed to traveling all over Alaska campaigning essentially by herself or with her family by her side, surely she could have done without all of the layers of control. I believe that Sarah Palin is precisely what the American people are seeking: an honest, intelligent, passionate, practical conservative who is nonpartisan and a tough decision maker.

Oddly, as I read Going Rogue and learned the real story behind the mainstream media assault upon this patriot, I was briefly reminded of the first time I met Hillary Clinton. She was in her first year as New York’s junior senator and my impression of her was largely shaped by what I read in the newspapers or saw on television, meaning mostly negative. When she came into the Pentagon for a 45 minute briefing from my boss, I was one of four people in the room: the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, Senator Clinton, her assistant Uma Abedin, and me.

Over the next 90 minutes, she not only ignored her schedule, but she demonstrated a keen intellect, undeniable sincerity, and genuine interest in the many complex topics discussed. I came away from that meeting with an entirely different viewpoint on Senator Clinton than had been painted for me in the media. I tucked away the lesson to always remember that there is a phalanx of reporters, journalists and hate mongers who are trying to tell us all what to think.

And so it was with Sarah Palin, someone I actually supported. I think Palin recognizes that the extreme members of both parties and media put each of them through the Mixmaster, in some part because they are women, and she extends an olive branch to Clinton for a chat over a cup of coffee.

No matter what your political leanings, you better believe that Sarah Palin will step forward when the time is right. She has spine and she is called to public service. She’s been bloodied in the faux battles of presidential politics and yet she’s still standing, making tough decisions. She seems to have an iron core spirit and a will to make our country better.

And like that pipeline of ink, she seems to have an indomitable will that when attacked, unfortunately for her opponents, she doesn’t break. Her resolve seems to strengthen.

As her father said, “Sarah’s not retreating; she’s reloading.”

We should hope so, because she’s precisely the kind of leader America needs

A Conservative Read On Palin's 'Going Rogue'
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120508053)
by Rod Dreher

November 17, 2009

Sarah Palin is back to tell us that she loves Alaska. And America. And Todd, the First Dude. She loves God, Ronald Reagan, cutting taxes and serving those she calls "ordinary hardworking people." Who's on Sarah's enemies list? The media. Good ol' boys who condescend to her. Elites like the Alaskan gadfly she describes as a "Birkenstock-and-granola Berkeley grad." Oh, and she really hates cynical McCain campaign staffers who, in her view, sabotaged her vice-presidential campaign.

That's pretty much everything you need to know about Going Rogue, the former Alaska governor's breezy new memoir. There's more about the intricacies of Alaskan politics than most readers could possibly care about. There are also familiar stories of life on the campaign trail. But Going Rogue is a book designed to re-introduce Palin as a national political force, and — though she's coy about this — to lay the groundwork for a 2012 presidential run.

The rap on Palin is that she's too shallow and inexperienced for the presidency — a conclusion that early Palin supporters like me came to during the 2008 campaign. Alas, for conservatives in search of a champion, there's nothing in Going Rogue to challenge that conclusion. It's like this: Palin spends seven pages dishing about her appearance on Saturday Night Live, but just over one page discussing her national security views.

Palin's economic program amounts to nothing more than tax-cutting, deregulating, and the endless repetition of shopworn GOP talking points. This is the Republican Party's great populist hope?

Palin positions herself as a populist, but her populism is entirely cultural. She never misses an opportunity to tell us how weepy she gets when she thinks about our country and its military. She fires the governor's mansion chef, who is bored because her kids won't eat his fancypants food. She swoons over a meal of homemade blueberry pie from "hardworking, unpretentious, patriotic" Alaskans — unlike, one presumes, those uppity Berkeley snobs who prefer tarte Tatin at Chez Panisse.

A little of that goes a long way, and I wouldn't begrudge Palin a bit of it if her populism had any economic substance. Early in Going Rogue she talks in detail about how Exxon exploited the people of Alaska in the Exxon Valdez disaster. And her experience tangling with oil companies taught Palin about how big business colludes with government to create a crony capitalism that harms the common good.

And yet, she's incapable of understanding how the uncritically pro-business economic agenda she touts makes this possible.

"In national politics, some feel that big Business is always opposed to the Little Guy," she writes. "Some people seem to think a profit motive is inherently greedy and evil, and that what's good for business is bad for people. (That's what Karl Marx thought too.)"

Karl Marx! Well, say no more! Along those lines, Palin's economic program amounts to nothing more than tax-cutting, deregulating and the endless repetition of shopworn GOP talking points.

This is the Republican Party's great populist hope?

Sarah Palin is selling a personality, not a platform. That's not dumb. She's doing the best she can with what she has to work with. She quotes her father's line upon her resignation this summer as Alaska's governor: "Sarah's not retreating, she's reloading." On evidence of this book, Sarah Palin is charging toward 2012 shooting blanks.

Note - I added the italics and bolded the last paragraph...

A woman afraid of a successful woman. Who would have thunk it.:rolleyes:

In fairness, this is what "conservative" Rod Dhrerer had to say about constitutional expert, attorney, and now talk radio pundit Mark Levin (http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/05/the-disgusting-mark-levin.html):

Having spent about 15 unpleasant minutes listening to this creep, I cannot imagine why anybody pays attention to him.

This self-avowed conservative doesn't seem to be particularly conservative or libertarian in any way. In fact, he's a big-government progressive Republican at best. I guess he's a "conservative" because he favors tax cuts or believes in God?

It's a long time until 2012.
Few people seem to remember this, in the years before the '80 election, Reagan did an either weekly radio broadcast, talking about current events and politics. Just a brief essays that'd he'd written. They're excellent.

Similar to Rush Limbaugh's morning updates (another guy that the "conservative" foxpaws quoted doesn't like) but longer and better written.

I'd like to see Palin take on some kind of role like that, where she has to thoughtful articulate her philosophies and views in a timely way like that.

I'd like to see Palin take on some kind of role like that, where she has to thoughtful articulate her philosophies and views in a timely way like that.


If she did this and was successful more people would take her seriously.
At least she didn't pardon a turkey this year :D

In 2002, Dreher wrote an essay in National Review that explored a subcategory of American conservatism he defined as "granola conservatism", whose adherents he described as "crunchy cons". He defined these individuals as traditionalist conservatives who believed in environmental conservation, frugal living, and the preservation of traditional family values. They also express skepticism about aspects of free market capitalism and they are usually religious (typically traditionalist Roman Catholics or conservative Protestants). Four years later, Dreher published a book that expanded upon the themes of this manifesto. This book was Crunchy Cons: How Birkenstocked Burkeans, Gun-Loving Organic Gardeners, Evangelical Free-Range Farmers, Hip Homeschooling Mamas, Right-Wing Nature Lovers, and Their Diverse Tribe of Countercultural Conservatives Plan to Save America (or At Least the Republican Party).[4]

Dreher is working on another book with a new theme. He has said on his blog that it will center on "the Benedict Option", the idea that those who want to live with traditional morality should separate themselves to some degree from mainstream society and try to live in intentional communities or other subcultures.So, he's a Walden Pond type wacko. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201873_pf.html)


Fox misrepresents YET AGAIN.

Should we start a sticky and hold all of her dishonest posts?

I never even heard of this guy Dreher until Fox dredged him up.

Hey foxpaws, what does conservative Rush Limbaugh say about Palin? After all, he's been voted the most influential conservative (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jpAE5xW2-_v2cl6Mz3RKj-Osq8eAD9C9GUOG0) in the country.

FAIL.

So, he's a Walden Pond type wacko. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201873_pf.html)


Fox misrepresents YET AGAIN.

Should we start a sticky and hold all of her dishonest posts?

I never even heard of this guy Dreher until Fox dredged him up.

Hey foxpaws, what does conservative Rush Limbaugh say about Palin? After all, he's been voted the most influential conservative (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jpAE5xW2-_v2cl6Mz3RKj-Osq8eAD9C9GUOG0) in the country.

FAIL.

I just copied the article - the headline was what was printed, not my commentary.

Ah, Rush follows Palin like a panting dog... And wouldn't it be wonderful if they hooked up forces... Nothing could please me more.

Oh, Bryan, I am certainly not threatened by a woman who can't even stick out her elected duties.

Reagan might not have been a favorite president of mine, but I believe it does him a great disservice to compare his views and Sarah's. Cal mentions his radio show and essays he wrote (not a ghost writer). I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.

I believe there is a world of difference between the conservatism of Reagan and Buckley and the current 'conservatism' embodied in Palin and Limbaugh. It is the reason I am not worried at all.

Oh, Bryan, I am certainly not threatened by a woman who can't even stick out her elected duties.

So you disagree with her decision to resign a job so knew she would be hounded at until the end, or was it better strategy to save the taxpayers of Alaska the money and jump-start her Presidential run?

You are very afraid. I can feel it emanating from your body.

I just copied the article - the headline was what was printed, not my commentary.

Nice backpedal. So you don't believe or support what's in the article?

Ah, Rush follows Palin like a panting dog... And wouldn't it be wonderful if they hooked up forces... Nothing could please me more.How would you even know this, since you don't listen?

But thanks for confirming my point. You tacitly admit you deliberately sought out a squishy 'conservative' who's critical of Palin, although you still won't make your point based on that.

Oh, Bryan, I am certainly not threatened by a woman who can't even stick out her elected duties. But you campaigned for a man who didn't stick out his? :rolleyes:

Reagan might not have been a favorite president of mine, but I believe it does him a great disservice to compare his views and Sarah's. Cal mentions his radio show and essays he wrote (not a ghost writer). I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word. Ramble ramble...

I believe there is a world of difference between the conservatism of Reagan and Buckley and the current 'conservatism' embodied in Palin and Limbaugh. It is the reason I am not worried at all.
This from an admitted non-listener. Not that you'd be able to articulate the difference. :rolleyes:

I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.
It's an excellent book that I pulled off the shelf after writing that last post.
It too expanded my opinion and respect for the man.

I believe there is a world of difference between the conservatism of Reagan and Buckley and the current 'conservatism' embodied in Palin and Limbaugh. It is the reason I am not worried at all.
I haven't read the Palin book, so I can't address that.
But I don't think there's any difference in the conservatism of Reagan or Limbaugh EXCEPT the times they lived.

Hey foxpaws, have you read the Palin book? You're always the first one to attack someone's credibility based on whether or not they've read this or that book.

Do tell.

Or will this be one of the questions you're 'too smart' to answer?

So you disagree with her decision to resign a job so knew so would be hounded at until the end, or was it better strategy to save the taxpayers of Alaska the money and jump-start her Presidential run?

You are very afraid. I can feel it emanating from your body.

MM - are you really that close to me - emanating from my body? :)

Hey foxpaws, have you read the Palin book? You're always the first one to attack someone's credibility based on whether or not they've read this or that book.

Do tell.

Or will this be one of the questions you're 'too smart' to answer?

Got through about 30 pages of it - set it aside - I'll try to get back to it, but honestly-I will probably wait for a friend of mine to tell me the sections to read, I doubt if I will be reading the entire book. It isn't very compelling. And it isn't in her 'own' words. I find that more telling about a person. Filtered through a ghost writer doesn't tell me a lot. I base my views on her by watching and reading her. Her own words. Her twitter posts are far more revealing than any ghost written book.

Have you read it Foss?

Nice backpedal. So you don't believe or support what's in the article?

I was going for equal time - MM posted pro - I posted against. I thought it was an interesting review. I haven't read the entire book - so I haven't a personal review to post.

MM - have you read the book?

How would you even know this, since you don't listen?

Sure I do, I go there whenever there is a big media 'look at this' about him. I then listen to the show, or portion of the show that got the media attention. And I do read the transcripts once in a while - they are funny. But, I am not, nor never will be, a regular listener.

But thanks for confirming my point. You tacitly admit you deliberately sought out a squishy 'conservative' who's critical of Palin, although you still won't make your point based on that.

But you campaigned for a man who didn't stick out his? :rolleyes:
Ramble ramble...

Because he ran for a more influential office? Well, whatever Foss. She quit - to have more time to pursue personal interests. And believe me, everyone who runs against her will take aim against her on that point. It is a valid criticism.

MM - have you read the book?

Yep. And I consider myself sexist and would never vote for a woman to be leader of this Country until now.

We gave the multi-racial guy a crack at it and it didn't work out. Heck I don't know if we'll even survive this guy, but with Palin, I think she would do a much better job surrounding herself with business leaders that would know how to fix what is broken without turning to socialism as the answer.

So coming from a sexist, I think Sara could be our man.

But I am open to other candidates that would uphold our Constitution, support the Bill of Rights, defend our Country with military might, and scale-back, on a massive scale, our government and those employed by it.

I was going for equal time - MM posted pro - I posted against. I thought it was an interesting review. I haven't read the entire book - so I haven't a personal review to post.

MM - have you read the book?



Sure I do, I go there whenever there is a big media 'look at this' about him. I then listen to the show, or portion of the show that got the media attention. And I do read the transcripts once in a while - they are funny. But, I am not, nor never will be, a regular listener.



Because he ran for a more influential office?And she quit to run for a more influential office and yet you protest?

I like the double-standard.

That is the problem inherent in all feminists... they hate strong (and attractive) women that apparently can do it all. It is so strange too. One would think that a feminist, by their nature, would strive to be like that. Guess not.:rolleyes:

Got through about 30 pages of it - set it aside - I'll try to get back to it, but honestly-I will probably wait for a friend of mine to tell me the sections to read, I doubt if I will be reading the entire book. It isn't very compelling. And it isn't in her 'own' words. I find that more telling about a person. Filtered through a ghost writer doesn't tell me a lot. I base my views on her by watching and reading her. Her own words. Her twitter posts are far more revealing than any ghost written book.

Have you read it Foss?It's on my list. I'm in the middle of another book right now.

Not going to comment on it until I read it.

Look at you, still criticizing the book after admitting you haven't read it and aren't going to. But you used the book as the basis for comparing her views to Reagan's, not her twitter posts.

You really should take a step back and look at your own posts. Pathetic.

Sure I do, I go there whenever there is a big media 'look at this' about him. I then listen to the show, or portion of the show that got the media attention. And I do read the transcripts once in a while - they are funny. But, I am not, nor never will be, a regular listener.

So you admit you don't even cherrypick, but only read the cherrypicks of others, namely the media whom you ADMIT is biased against Rush.

Perfect. Couldn't have asked for a more revealing answer. Thanks for being honest about your shallowness. Zero credibility whatsoever.

Based on your own standards for being able to comment cogently on a subject, you're incompetent vis-a-vis Rush Limbaugh topics.

And Palin's for that matter.


Because he ran for a more influential office? Well, whatever Foss. She quit - to have more time to pursue personal interests. And believe me, everyone who runs against her will take aim against her on that point. It is a valid criticism.Oooooo, the 'WHATEVER' defense! Oh, man, I just got ZOMGPWNED there! :rolleyes: Wait...Wikipedia doesn't have this in the listing of 'flawed logical arguments.

Oh, that's because it's a 'nonsense emotive' argument.

What about your own theory that Sarah will run for the Presidency? Isn't that a higher office? So if she does, in fact, run for the Presidency, how can that be a valid criticism of her but not of Obama?

Do you believe that Obama's 5-minute career is a valid criticism of him? What about his own admission that he wasn't qualified? You still haven't answered my question about campaigning for a guy who has less experience than Palin.

It's on my list. I'm in the middle of another book right now.

Not going to comment on it until I read it.

Look at you, still criticizing the book after admitting you haven't read it and aren't going to. But you used the book as the basis for comparing her views to Reagan's, not her twitter posts.

You really should take a step back and look at your own posts. Pathetic.

This is what I said - I didn't use her 'book' - I used her 'views'...
Reagan might not have been a favorite president of mine, but I believe it does him a great disservice to compare his views and Sarah's. Cal mentions his radio show and essays he wrote (not a ghost writer). I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.

And then I stated later where I get my information on her 'views'... twitter posts and speeches.

Maybe you should actually read my posts Foss... The only thing I personally have criticized about her book is the ghost writing - and I would criticize that about any book... the filter effect.

This is what I said - I didn't use her 'book' - I used her 'views'...
Reagan might not have been a favorite president of mine, but I believe it does him a great disservice to compare his views and Sarah's. Cal mentions his radio show and essays he wrote (not a ghost writer). I have read "In his own hand" a collection of his writings, which I would recommend. It is an interesting body of work, and certainly moved me away from thinking that the man wasn't bright, and it shows he certainly could craft the written and spoken word.

And then I stated later where I get my information on her 'views'... twitter posts and speeches.

Maybe you should actually read my posts Foss... The only thing I personally have criticized about her book is the ghost writing - and I would criticize that about any book... the filter effect.I have read your posts, every single pathetic dishonest one of them.

Maybe you should go back and re-read them yourself, and then get back to me on what you consider credibility to be, reading someone's book or someone's twitter. Hint: Look at the Ayn Rand thread.

Buh-bye now.

So you admit you don't even cherrypick, but only read the cherrypicks of others, namely the media whom you ADMIT is biased against Rush.

Perfect. Couldn't have asked for a more revealing answer. Thanks for being honest about your shallowness. Zero credibility whatsoever.

Based on your own standards for being able to comment cogently on a subject, you're incompetent vis-a-vis Rush Limbaugh topics.

And Palin's for that matter.


Oooooo, the 'WHATEVER' defense! Oh, man, I just got ZOMGPWNED there! :rolleyes: Wait...Wikipedia doesn't have this in the listing of 'flawed logical arguments.

Oh, that's because it's a 'nonsense emotive' argument.

What about your own theory that Sarah will run for the Presidency? Isn't that a higher office?

Do you believe that Obama's 5-minute career is a valid criticism of him? What about his own admission that he wasn't qualified? You still haven't answered my question about campaigning for a guy who has less experience than Palin.

MM and Foss - she could have run for office easily after she completed her term in Alaska - she quit.

I campaigned for someone who I shared some ideals with. I however mostly campaigned against a ticket that I felt would not represent me, in any way.

I get involved in politics foss - Do you - well, other than bitching about it?

Experience... did you think Eisenhower was a good president foss?

MM and Foss - she could have run for office easily after she completed her term in Alaska - she quit.

I campaigned for someone who I shared some ideals with. I however mostly campaigned against a ticket that I felt would not represent me, in any way.

I get involved in politics foss - Do you - well, other than bitching about it?

Experience... did you think Eisenhower was a good president foss?1. Wrong about Palin. Easily? How myopic. Advice - read the news, try to keep up.

2. Ad hominem trolling

3. Changing the subject, red herring.

4. Why, did you campaign for Eisenhower too?

I have read your posts, every single pathetic dishonest one of them.

Maybe you should go back and re-read them yourself, and then get back to me on what you consider credibility to be, reading someone's book or someone's twitter. Hint: Look at the Ayn Rand thread.

Buh-bye now.

Wow - you must be the only one foss... I am impressed, a Fan... ;)

I state where I got my opinions from regarding Palin, and why I somewhat discount the book. Do you think that she changes her ideals in the book from what she has placed forth in speeches or in interviews or on her twitter page? That would be odd...

Oh, I have read and understand Rand far more than you do Foss - however, you can drudge up the old thread if you wish - it isn't that hard discussing Rand with someone who only cursorily understands the veneer of objectivism.

Wow - you must be the only one foss... I am impressed, a Fan... ;)

I state where I got my opinions from regarding Palin, and why I somewhat discount the book. Do you think that she changes her ideals in the book from what she has placed forth in speeches or in interviews or on her twitter page? That would be odd...

Oh, I have read and understand Rand far more than you do Foss - however, you can drudge up the old thread if you wish - it isn't that hard discussing Rand with someone who only cursorily understands the veneer of objectivism.Contradicts what you said about Rand, your ad hominem and sneering notwithstanding.

1. Wrong about Palin. Easily? How myopic. Advice - read the news, try to keep up.

2. Ad hominem trolling

3. Changing the subject, red herring.

4. Why, did you campaign for Eisenhower too?

Yes, easily, she would have had almost a year to run. Plus, the opportunity to throw her hat into the ring far before that and use the platform of 'governor' to run for office. It is a pretty common way to run for office.

Ad hominem trolling? Character attacking, or appealing to emotion...

You brought up my campaign efforts, not me foss... I give that change of subject award to you...

And you are using two political figures as an experience comparison. Why just limit it to two?

Do you think that Eisenhower was a good president?

Contradicts what you said about Rand, your ad hominem and sneering notwithstanding.

really - what is the contradiction?

really - what is the contradiction?Your position in the Rand thread was that those who have read the most books on a subject are the 'experts.' You just did it again.

Yet you claim to understand Palin based on her twitter posts while refusing to read her book because it was ghost written (as if that suddenly means it doesn't represent her views), and you claim to understand Rush Limbaugh based on cherrypicked media 'quotes.'

The only thing I personally have criticized about her book is the ghost writing - and I would criticize that about any book... the filter effect.

Are you critical of Obama's books for the same reason.

Or is he the greatest author of our time?

Are you critical of Obama's FORGED selective service enlistment?

Your position in the Rand thread was that those who have read the most books on a subject are the 'experts.' You just did it again.

Yet you claim to understand Palin based on her twitter posts while refusing to read her book because it was ghost written (as if that suddenly means it doesn't represent her views), and you claim to understand Rush Limbaugh based on cherrypicked media 'quotes.'

Well, Rand actually wrote her own books, unlike Palin’s, which is ghost written – again, there is that filter which I have already spoken of. And Rand died before I was interested in her work – so I really couldn’t go to her lectures or other appearances. (She actually was filmed only rarely – so there is very little footage of her, however there are quite a few recordings of her lectures – but, you can also get her lectures in book form, the recordings are often rather ‘scratchy’ and you can miss a lot).

If she had twitter available, I would have love to have read Ayn’s twitter posts. They no doubt would have been fascinating and a great insight to her. I would have based some of my opinion certainly on those – if that technology had been available to her.

I am not refusing to read Palin’s book – once again Foss, you need to read my posts – you say you do, and then you come up with something like this, which so obviously points towards the fact you don’t. I have read about 30 pages, and will read more, sort of the ‘best of’ when both – the person who is reading it now has that information to me, and when I have the time.

And I do go out to the actual Limbaugh site to read the transcripts and listen to the audio. Heck, I have access to an account – so I get to see everything there I might want. So, Foss, I don’t just look at media quotes – I do go to the source.

Do you think Eisenhower was a good president?

MM – put down the mouse, and step away from the computer… ;)

I am not refusing to read Palin’s book – once again Foss, you need to read my posts – you say you do, and then you come up with something like this, which so obviously points towards the fact you don’t. I have read about 30 pages, and will read more, sort of the ‘best of’ when both – the person who is reading it now has that information to me, and when I have the time.

And I do go out to the actual Limbaugh site to read the transcripts and listen to the audio. Heck, I have access to an account – so I get to see everything there I might want. So, Foss, I don’t just look at media quotes – I do go to the source. Oh, you INTEND TO? That's all that matters with you liberals, intentions, right?

At least be honest enough to say you're going to cherrypick, instead of saying you're going to read. You're so transparent.

Bottom line is, you haven't read enough of Palin or listened to enough of LImbaugh to discuss either of them, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.

Oh, you INTEND TO? That's all that matters with you liberals, intentions, right?

At least be honest enough to say you're going to cherrypick, instead of saying you're going to read. You're so transparent.

Bottom line is, you haven't read enough of Palin or listened to enough of LImbaugh to discuss either of them, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.

Sure - I am going to cherry pick - I will be reading the parts of the book that a conservative recommends that I read. I really don't have the time to read all of it - after the first 30 pages you will see what I mean. The folksy part is just overwhelming. I will read the parts that discuss her views and her ideas, and not read the 'homey' stuff.

I will read it Foss - how about your intentions here - you have also stated that you will be reading it as well, but you haven't as yet either. Do you plan on following through on this, like you have followed through on your Constitution conspiracy theory essay?

I read "The Way Thing Ought To Be" so I have read at least Rush's best selling book (I think it is still the best selling one... not positive about that though). Have you read everything he has written and listen to every one of his shows, if not - I guess you cherry pick him as well.

I read "The Way Thing Ought To Be" so I have read at least Rush's best selling book (I think it is still the best selling one... not positive about that though). Have you read everything he has written and listen to every one of his shows, if not - I guess you cherry pick him as well.Moving the goalposts, fox, tsk tsk tsk...I guarantee I know way more about Rush than you do. I have listened to his show since 1992 regularly, have read his books, and have received his newsletter.

Nice try, though. FAIL.

I will read it Foss - how about your intentions here - you have also stated that you will be reading it as well, but you haven't as yet either. Do you plan on following through on this, like you have followed through on your Constitution conspiracy theory essay?Try to stay on topic, fox, ok? This isn't the thread. Frankly, you're getting tiresome, much like a broken record. You don't have anything new to add these days, so you recycle the same old talking points.

If you read my posts, you'd know that I said that I'm already reading another book. Sorry my timetable doesn't fit yours. Unlike you, I don't sit around breathlessly waiting for others to post and then whine when they don't.

Sure - I am going to cherry pick - I will be reading the parts of the book that a conservative recommends that I read. I really don't have the time to read all of it - after the first 30 pages you will see what I mean. The folksy part is just overwhelming. I will read the parts that discuss her views and her ideas, and not read the 'homey' stuff.A 'conservative?' Ha. You mean like Rod Dreher, for example? :rolleyes:

So, you don't have time to read her book but you demand that I furnish you an essay? LOLz at the irony. Maybe if you wouldn't spend so much time trolling political forums you'd have time to read the book, eh?

Moving the goalposts, fox, tsk tsk tsk...I guarantee I know way more about Rush than you do. I have listened to his show since 1992 regularly, have read his books, and have received his newsletter.

Nice try, though. FAIL.
I don't doubt that you do.

Try to stay on topic, fox, ok? This isn't the thread. Frankly, you're getting tiresome, much like a broken record. You don't have anything new to add these days, so you recycle the same old talking points.

If you read my posts, you'd know that I said that I'm already reading another book. Sorry my timetable doesn't fit yours. Unlike you, I don't sit around breathlessly waiting for others to post and then whine when they don't.

Just one book Foss - come on, you should be able to at least digest a couple at a time... And you do intend to read her book - correct?

A 'conservative?' Ha. You mean like Rod Dreher, for example? :rolleyes:

So, you don't have time to read her book but you demand that I furnish you an essay? LOLz at the irony. Maybe if you wouldn't spend so much time trolling political forums you'd have time to read the book, eh?

Don't know Rod Dreher personally Foss-sorry...

I will read her book. It might be the reader's digest condensed version - but I will read it, the parts that have to do with political issues. What I don't need to read is the bad 'folksy' stuff - just pull it out and read the first 5 pages or so foss - the whole state fair thing is painful to read.

When I get the book back from my friend, with the sections marked that I should be reading, I will get right on it.

There are much better things to read out there Foss - I will read them, and just read the highlights of her book.

I will read her book. It might be the reader's digest condensed version

Like you "read" Hayek's Road to Serfdom yet missed key arguments from that book when I threw them at you in a thread in which you had earlier discussed that book?

Are you going to simply say you read this book, like you "read" Road to Serfdom, like you "studied" political philosophy or like you "understand" polls and statistical analysis?

Who know, maybe this will be one of the rare instances where you tell the truth instead of spamming lies...

Just one book Foss - come on, you should be able to at least digest a couple at a time...
So you've abandoned rational discussion in favor of childish taunts. Lame.

Well, Rand actually wrote her own books, unlike Palin’s, which is ghost written – again, there is that filter which I have already spoken of. Forget the obvious, the fact that Palin, HarperCollins, and everyone else concerned announced from the get go that Lynn Vincent would be involved. That kinda kills the ghost angle, dead. Palin's life events in the book were taken from her journals. So what's your problem with using somebody else to tell the story? Do you hold Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the same standard? Hillary, for example, used 5 ghostwriters for 3 books, and we know that William Ayers wrote "Dreams from my father." Hey, at least Palin's collaborator wasn't a terrorist.

Did you read 'It takes a village?'

Would you like some more examples? Andre Agassi?

For that matter, does any politician write his/her own speeches? Shall we discuss Obama's dependence on the TOTUS now? :rolleyes: What percentage of Obama's spoken words are actually written by him, do you think?

Let me ask you this - do you watch the news on TV? Those lines are written by someone other than the 'anchor' doing the speaking. Does that discredit what they are saying?

You say you've read Palin's twitters. What about her Facebook posts? Clearly she can write, so what's your point in sneering at her book?

This is clearly an oblique case of you moving the goalposts vis-a-vis a double standard.

And as far as the 'folksy' comment - that just reveals what a snob you are. Congratulations.

Forget the obvious, the fact that Palin, HarperCollins, and everyone else concerned announced from the get go that Lynn Vincent would be involved. That kinda kills the ghost angle, dead. Palin's life events in the book were taken from her journals. So what's your problem with using somebody else to tell the story? Do you hold Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to the same standard? Hillary, for example, used 5 ghostwriters for 3 books, and we know that William Ayers wrote "Dreams from my father." Hey, at least Palin's collaborator wasn't a terrorist.

Did you read 'It takes a village?'

Well, since there isn't a check paper trail to Ayers - who knows...

But, weren't you all over Obama for 'supposedly' having a ghost writer - that it was somehow bad? I doubt if he did - once again no paper trail. But, I wasn't that fond of 'Dreams from my Father' - I have stated that before here.

Yes I read 'It takes a village'. It was OK - 'Living History' is better. 'My Life' an even better read...

For that matter, does any politician write his/her own speeches? Shall we discuss Obama's dependence on the TOTUS now? :rolleyes: What percentage of Obama's spoken words are actually written by him, do you think?

Reagan wrote many of his own speeches - so did Clinton, Carter. I would think that Obama edits, but I haven't a clue on how much, I haven't seen the drafts.

I was just saying that I don't like the filter of a ghost writer, I don't care who the book is about. How much is really 'first person' with that filter - you really don't know. I have been told that Palin's book is pretty reminiscence of Vincent's other work..

You say you've read Palin's twitters. What about her Facebook posts? Clearly she can write, so what's your point in sneering at her book?

Some Facebook - often when they are quoted somewhere. I guess they are hers - although, I know many politician's don't write their own stuff even on their internet social accounts - that is what the staff is for...

I just don't like ghostwriters, for anyone - and Foss - if you once again read the first 30 pages you will see what I mean - it is very painful. If the rest of Palin's book reads like those first few pages, it will be a long, long read.

And as far as the 'folksy' comment - that just reveals what a snob you are. Congratulations.

Well - fine - I can be a snob. Have you heard of writing down to the bones? I think that is also the name of a book - how to write from 'you'. Palin's book sounds rehearsed, and like it wants to be genuine, but is just a veneer of 'folksy'. It doesn't read sincerely. It could be the filter of the ghost writer - another reason not to like them...

I doubt if he did - once again no paper trail.

Oh Please. Spare us.:shifty:

No paper trail.:rolleyes:

Show me ANYTHING about Obama and his past education. You know, grades, ACT scores...

Point is, you don't know squat about Obama and to sit here and tell us you think he probably wrote either book is so disengenuous, it is laughable.

The guy is a fraud.:(

Palin's book sounds rehearsed, and like it wants to be genuine, but is just a veneer of 'folksy'. It doesn't read sincerely. It could be the filter of the ghost writer - another reason not to like them...Since you HAVEN'T READ IT, by your OWN ADMISSION, please tell us...where did you get those talking points? :rolleyes:

So, Miss Snob, since you claim to be such a book writing expert - how many books have you written and put up for review and criticism?

Some Facebook - often when they are quoted somewhere. I guess they are hers - although, I know many politician's don't write their own stuff even on their internet social accounts - that is what the staff is for...So on one hand, you dismiss my point about Obama ghost writing his book due to lack of a paper trail, yet you eagerly embrace your own INVENTED idea, despite having any evidence whatsoever, that Palin ghost writes her FACEBOOK PAGE?

Your myopia is legendary.

Reagan wrote many of his own speeches - so did Clinton, Carter. I would think that Obama edits, but I haven't a clue on how much, I haven't seen the drafts.Didn't Peggy Noonan write Reagan's speeches? Didn't Chrissy Matthews write Carter's? (I call him Chrissy because he said Obama's speech gave him a tingle up his leg)

But, weren't you all over Obama for 'supposedly' having a ghost writer - that it was somehow bad? I doubt if he did - once again no paper trail. But, I wasn't that fond of 'Dreams from my Father' - I have stated that before here.
More all over him for associating with a terrorist. But nothing to see here, let's move on was your position on that, remember?

Well, since there isn't a check paper trail to Ayers - who knows...Classic moving the goalposts. Never mind that Ayers CLAIMS to have written it.

Interesting that you blindly cling to your own version of the truth by stolidly and myopically voicing the 'paper trail' talking point. Never mind that YOUR BOY OBAMA hasn't been up front about his authorship. Palin has. Your choice of whom to follow is revealing - stick with the secretive guy who pals around with terrorists and carefully covers his tracks. Make fun of the woman who is open and honest.

Here, foxpaws, eat this: (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Palin-Pens-Bio-in-San-Diego-62465917.html)

The moose-hunting hockey mom can now add “author” to her resume after consulting her muse in San Diego.

Ex-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin finished penning her tome just four months after the blockbuster book deal was announced, and the release date for her highly anticipated memoir has been moved up from spring to Nov. 14, her publisher said.

Palin, 45, spent weeks in San Diego shortly after leaving office and worked on the manuscript with collaborator Lynn Vincent, a person close to her said. She was joined in San Diego by her family and her top aide, Meghan Stapleton, then spent several days in New York working around the clock with editors at Harper, said the person, who wasn’t authorized to comment and asked not to be identified.

“Governor Palin has been unbelievably conscientious and hands-on at every stage, investing herself deeply and passionately in this project,” Harper publisher Jonathan Burnham said. “It’s her words, her life and it’s all there in full and fascinating detail.”

Palin's book sounds rehearsed, and like it wants to be genuine, but is just a veneer of 'folksy'. It doesn't read sincerely. It could be the filter of the ghost writer - another reason not to like them...At least she didn't plagiarize like your Vice President did.

Yes I read 'It takes a village'. It was OK - 'Living History' is better.Ghost written.

..so in short, foxpaws is just going to invest energy into dismissing her.
And does anyone expect anything different. The "conservative" response she posted has been thoroughly addressed and his self-identification is a fraud.

She's going to attack Palin for being too "folksy" in one statement, then dismiss the rest because it has a co-author. Was the co-author too folksy also? Is the book good because the co-author was responsible for it, or merely bad because he wasn't responsible for it?

As demonstrated, the ideological far left, those like Foxpaws, will dismiss and attack Palin REGARDLESS what she does. They will not give her a fair hearing because she comes from outside the current political power structure and she does pose a profound political risk to them.

And to this point, she remains a bit of an unknown quantity.
But she is a threat so she must be crushed before she grows. If they were confident that she lacked depth or appeal they'd eagerly await for her to flame out and take out any political movement that might be associated with
her. That's too much of a threat.

And even more threatening is the fact they just don't know what she's going to do? Run for office? Remain a public figure and motivate political change from the outside? They just don't know. Again, kill it before it grows.

The same people who don't read her book, yet remain highly critical of her and those who enjoyed it, are the same ones (as mentioned in this thread) who embrace ghost written tomes of nonsense by the likes of Hillary, Obama, and Al Gore.

Good summation Cal.

Bottom line - Palin's book has sold over a million copies and counting.

Good God Fossten can't you just edit one post.
She must be under your skin.

Wow fox taking on all the boys today?

Breaking news.......no way would I waste my time with the book or going to see Palin but some had a hard time staying away :)

I would have gone to see this.

YouTube- Man Throws Tomatoes at Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpy7fGyqyPU)

Good God Fossten can't you just edit one post.
She must be under your skin.

Wow fox taking on all the boys today?Want some cheese with that whine, troll?

Breaking news.......no way would I waste my time with the book or going to see Palin but some had a hard time staying away :)

I would have gone to see this.

YouTube- Man Throws Tomatoes at Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpy7fGyqyPU)
Can you verify your whereabouts during this period of time?

Want some cheese with that whine, troll?
Troll??? that's a good one.
You have what...8 posts in a row.
Temper....temper.
I honestly don't think it can be healthy for you to get so upset.


Can you verify your whereabouts during this period of time?

LOL Nope....but I am not in jail.

Can you verify your whereabouts during this period of time?

LOL Precious

Hey Nut, do you have a garden in your backyard? Have been canning tomatoes as Chrismas presents? The world wants to know.

Troll??? that's a good one.
You have what...8 posts in a row.
Temper....temper.
I honestly don't think it can be healthy for you to get so upset.
"Sorry Hans, wrong guess! Want to try for double jeopardy where the scores can really change?" :rolleyes:

You're not very good at analyzing my state of mind.

Alternatively, your hard-on for me is quite apparent.

Alternatively, your hard-on for me is quite apparent.
as is yours for fox.

then spent several days in New York working around the clock with editors at Harper, said the person, who wasn’t authorized to comment and asked not to be identified.

ghost writer, now ghost spokes people.

...so it's fun to assault people that we think we might not agree with totally, assuming we know who they are, based upon the opinions of elitists in NY, DC, and LA who totally hate her and proclaim to think that she's laughable, but at the same rate can't stop thinking about her and attacking her, her family, and everything about her?

It's interesting, I've never considered going to a book signing and throwing things at the authors I've been told to not like.

I'm also not aware of liberals being subject to that kind of assault and intimidation, that kind of effort to silence their dissenting voice.
While I certainly can't say it's never happened in recent years, it seems to be the M.O. of the intellectually bankrupt, brainwashed, and unoriginal political activist left usually attacking "conservatives" or recognized capitalist.

as is yours for fox.
You have that backwards, as usual. What about yours for Christians.

No its not fun, its sad.

But if you think people can't stand her simply because of what they have been told, your sadly mistaken.

She is her own worst enemy.
If she is the best the party can do be prepared for Obama to hold two terms.

No its not fun, its sad.

But if you think people can't stand her simply because of what they have been told, your sadly mistaken.

She is her own worst enemy.
If she is the best the party can do be prepared for Obama to hold two terms.Please tell us why people can't stand her OTHER THAN because of what they've been told. Do YOU know her personally? Didn't think so. And yet you verbally assaulted her daughter, calling her a whore, based on things you'd been told.

But if you think people can't stand her simply because of what they have been told, your sadly mistaken.

You've expressed hostility towards her in the past, so why don't you explain what you "can't stand about her."

She is her own worst enemy.
Again, you're makings statements that require greater clarification, otherwise they have no meaning.

How is she her 'own worst enemy.'
I can understand why you might think she's a philosophical lightweight, but I don't see how that would distinguish her the 99.5% of the politiicans currently serving in office.

If she is the best the party can do be prepared for Obama to hold two terms.
First, why are you saying she's bad?
Second, why do you presume she's running for President.
Third, why do you presume that she'd be the choice of the GOP anyway?
She's not particularly popular with the beltway crowd at all.

Please tell us why people can't stand her OTHER THAN because of what they've been told. Do YOU know her personally? Didn't think so. And yet you verbally assaulted her daughter, calling her a whore, based on things you'd been told.

My opinion of her was formed from what has come out of Palin's mouth.
Please post a link were I called her daughter a whore.
You can't because I never did...troll.

You have that backwards, as usual. What about yours for Christians.

i don't "hate" christians. but you keep believing that. it fuels your belief. what about your hatred of anti-theists?

i don't "hate" christians. but you keep believing that. it fuels your belief. what about your hatred of anti-theists?Your avatar belies your dishonest words.

My opinion of her was formed from what has come out of Palin's mouth.
Give me an example.

Give me an example.

Give me the link.

.....I just want to move this along.
I'm not aware of Ford Nut ever calling her a "whore."
I do remember Fossten characterizing what he said as "all but calling her a whore."

That was over a year ago so everyone's memory of it is undoubtedly blurred and searching for specifics here is frustratingly difficult.

Now, Ford Nut, I did ask a question of you regarding your opinion of Palin seeking greater clarification regarding what you're basing your opinion on. You formed that opinion of Palin very early on.

Well foss, slipping into a bit of irrationality now? Posts 43-50… whoa…

Noonan wrote some of Reagan’s speeches, but not all of them, he wrote many. Matthews wrote some of Carters, when he was in office. Heck, I contributed to writers who helped Clinton. As they move into the presidential office they have less time to craft speeches, they look to others. But, Reagan wrote some of his own books, Clinton did/does, Carter did/does. Especially their early ones. Palin starts with a ghostwriter, she had the time – why not ‘in her own words?’.

So, needless to say I think that it was only some right wing nut blogger that said that Ayers told him at the airport that he wrote Obama’s book… big hearsay…

I stand by my ghostwriting claim – I liked Living History – but do I think I am reading Hillary, not entirely. The book was good, but much of it doesn’t sound like her.

My Life – 2.8 million (and heck – the 1,000 pages has deterred some), It Takes A Village – over one million/10th Printing. Palin’s numbers are strong – but, will they hold – we will see… I think they will for a while. They might pick up again if she does make her campaign official.

So, yes, Cal – I don’t particularly like Palin as a political leader. You might bash Obama tons – and I don’t call you on that as irrational dislike. I don’t like Palin because to even think of her as the leader of the free world makes me actually frightened. I believe that is how you feel about Obama – and I don’t call you on that, there is no reason to.

I am critiquing the book – it is folksy – I did say it could be the veneer of ghostwriting. I didn’t say Palin was folksy I said the book was, and once again, I have been very clear – I have read 30 pages of it… I would have stopped there, it was that bad. But, since it no doubt will somewhat define the next couple of years regarding Palin, I will read the parts that are political in scope. I don’t need to read where it bashes the McCain campaign, or waxes poetic (poorly I might add – read Jack London if you want Alaska) about the Alaskan night. I would like to read where she clearly states her stands on political issues. Hopefully that is in there.

And yes, if you are good politically, if you see a threat, you go after it early, and often. If Franken seemed to be itching to run for President, you don’t think the GOP would be sharpening their claws and going after him now?

Palin also quit. You can excuse it away, but the reason she gave, that the distracters were hindering her ability to do her job is just silly. Look at the distracters every president has had, and in the last 3 it has gotten terrible. From Clinton to Bush to Obama, the outside badgering, law suits, etc., has gone from bad to worse. And yet, they do their job. But, for Palin, that is the most politically correct answer she could have given, blame someone else. A classic political ploy. If she is considering running for president, then stepping down to do that, could have hurt her politically. If she wanted to get the book out, have fun on the book tour, and make money- it would have been a serious blow to any political aspirations she might have had. Quitting the job that she was voted in to do is a big black mark against her in my book. You don’t quit. If you are in the reserves and you get called up to fight, you don’t quit. The job has changed, but you signed up knowing it could, and you go and fight. If you get voted in to be governor, but the job gets tough, you get tough. President could be perhaps the toughest job in the world. If Sarah thought she had distracters in Alaska, the sh!t she would have to deal with in Washington is 10 times that. She couldn’t handle the small doses in Alaska, there is no way she could handle the way they sling it in DC. She might put on a tough girl attitude, but she isn’t. Hillary is tough, Palin isn’t.

.....I just want to move this along.
I'm not aware of Ford Nut ever calling her a "whore."
I do remember Fossten characterizing what he said as "all but calling her a whore."

That was over a year ago so everyone's memory of it is undoubtedly blurred and searching for specifics here is frustratingly difficult.

Now, Ford Nut, I did ask a question of you regarding your opinion of Palin seeking greater clarification regarding what you're basing your opinion on. You formed that opinion of Palin very early on.

Yes I did form it very early.
She is too much God and Guns for me.
Now is that bad?
Maybe not for the far right but I think its bad for the party as a whole.

I would like to see the right have more power.

I think they need to come more towards the middle for this to happen.

That does not mean I think she is a bad person???
NO
She is doing what she believes is the right thing.
I think she uses religion as a tool, and it bothers me.
It really is that simple, that opinion comes from what she says, not from what I read in the media.

I assume she is going to run because she is keeping herself in the spotlight.
It would be easy for her to fade away if that is what she wanted.
I don't think she will be the choice of the GOP.
I agree 100% she is not popular with moderate Republicans.
We all know the left can't stand her.

President could be perhaps the toughest job in the world.

Obama must not have gotten your memo...:D

Noonan wrote some of Reagan’s speeches, but not all of them, he wrote many.
Just to support what you're saying-
Even as President, Reagan reviewed and rewrote most of the speeches that were written for him. Being a speech writer for Reagan was an extremely difficult job because of Reagan's own recognized ability and distinct speaking "voice."

Palin starts with a ghostwriter, she had the time – why not ‘in her own words?’.
First, you're failing to note the difference in the situation.

She wasn't just releasing a low-selling book prior to launching a campaign that no one would read. It seems like every national candidate releases a low-volume book before running for national audience. The desire to have a co-writer assist in the book in order to get it ready for such an accelerated release is reasonable.

Second, Bill Clinton and Al Gore both used ghost writers. If I remember correct, it was a guy named Will North.

Hillary's first major book, "It Takes a Village" was ghost written, arguably completely written, by Barbara Feinman.

UNLIKE the Clinton trifecta I just mentioned, Palin had a CO-AUTHOR not a GHOSTWRITER.

So you're attempting to make a distinction here that is completely unfair and misleading.

So, yes, Cal – I don’t particularly like Palin as a political leader. You might bash Obama tons – and I don’t call you on that as irrational dislike.
And that would be because I base my lack of support for Obama on his ACTIONS. I will also, gladly, explain what those actions and policies are, why they are destructive and how they hurt this country. So, by definition, that would be a RATIONAL dislike for the politician.

Perhaps you have a "rational" dislike of Gov. Palin.
Rarely, if ever, have I seen a discussion of her ever address those things anywhere.

I don’t like Palin because to even think of her as the leader of the free world makes me actually frightened. I believe that is how you feel about Obama – and I don’t call you on that, there is no reason to.
Actually, I've explained that numerous times and I readily will explain why Obama is a bad head of state. Why would you be "frightened" to have Palin as head of state?

And mind you, I'm not arguing that she's the best choice for President, I have my own sets of reservations about her. But they are rational and I can express my concerns. That's something I doubt you've ever been asked to do.

I am critiquing the book – it is folksy – I did say it could be the veneer of ghostwriting. I didn’t say Palin was folksy I said the book was, and once again, I have been very clear – I have read 30 pages of it… I would have stopped there, it was that bad.
You've attacked the book from every direction you can think of, and from there you used it as an attack on the ability of Palin.

By the way, is there anything wrong or inappropriate about a mid-western woman who lives in Alaska having a voice that you, with your more metropolitan perspective, view as a bit "folksy?"

You certainly don't have to enjoy the read, and I don't challenge your opinion on the readability on it.

But, since it no doubt will somewhat define the next couple of years regarding Palin, I will read the parts that are political in scope.
Why bother?
Why don't you put the book away considering you've already made a decision on it, refrain from passing judgment, and see what happens next in her career.

I don’t need to read where it bashes the McCain campaign,
Bashes or simply recounts what took place?
Personally, that campaign deserves to be bashed, you won't find it in that book.

or waxes poetic (poorly I might add – read Jack London if you want Alaska) about the Alaskan night.
...seriously, you're going to compare her little memoir against Jack London?
Another Foxpaws, death by a thousand paper cuts, attack prose.

I would like to read where she clearly states her stands on political issues. Hopefully that is in there.
Political "issues" or principles?

And yes, if you are good politically, if you see a threat, you go after it early, and often. If Franken seemed to be itching to run for President, you don’t think the GOP would be sharpening their claws and going after him now?
Al Franken?
No, it'd be a waste of energy.
And tactically foolish.

Palin also quit. You can excuse it away, but the reason she gave, that the distracters were hindering her ability to do her job is just silly
Again, I don't consider myself a Palin political supporter.
I think she's a compelling person, but I'm not sold on her.

However, i think her move to quit, though a political liability, was not the move of a quiter, and most likely the best decision for the state of Alaska.

Look at the distracters every president has had, and in the last 3 it has gotten terrible.
Completely different situation. Your comparing Presidents to the Governor of Alaska. The legal, political, and economic impact and scale are very different. It's truly an apples/orange comparison.

It's always interesting to see how you repeat the party-line talking point on these issues though. It's nice to know in advance what the official arguments I'll be encountering over the next few months will be.

She might put on a tough girl attitude, but she isn’t. Hillary is tough, Palin isn’t.
I don't know... I never saw Palin cry onstage because she was behind in the polls during a primary race.

YouTube- Hillary cries, with subtitles! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq3iBWHHQAQ)

YouTube- Clinton Wells Up: 'This Is Very Personal' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl-W3IXRTHU)

Yes I did form it very early.
She is too much God and Guns for me.
Now is that bad?
Maybe not for the far right but I think its bad for the party as a whole.
What does that mean? That's she's religious and supports the second amendment?

But it looks like your confirming what I said earlier. You're accepting the biased and skewed image of her provided you through the lens of the mainstream media and accepting it?

From a policy standpoint, do you have something to base this negative "God and guns" premise on? Anything she said? I just don't understand it.


I think they need to come more towards the middle for this to happen.
Again, what does that mean?
Moderate their positions on what?
How do you conceptualize that as happening?

Marxism-lite?
Soft-socialism?
Maybe only respecting the constitution on days that have the letter "r" in them?

What about if they were just constitutionally minded Federalists?

She is doing what she believes is the right thing.
I think she uses religion as a tool, and it bothers me.
It really is that simple, that opinion comes from what she says, not from what I read in the media.
Please, just give me an example of what that means.
I'm not asking for a link to an article with a quote... I'm not trying to make homework for you, just understand what you're thinking.
Just let me know what you remember that gave you this impression- what the image is.

I assume she is going to run because she is keeping herself in the spotlight.
It would be easy for her to fade away if that is what she wanted.
She might just be a pundit or commentator.
Or even just a way for a third-party, or coalition party to fundraise.

I don't think she will be the choice of the GOP.
I agree 100% she is not popular with moderate Republicans.
What the hell is a "moderate" Republican? A liberal who supports limited tax cuts?

She's not popular with the establishment Republicans. The North Eastern Republicans. The big government, progressive Republicans.

We all know the left can't stand her.
The political left and the column of useful idiots can't stand anyone that stands in their way.

Actually Bill wrote My Life in longhand – however North was tasked with gathering it up. He was the editor in this case – not the ghostwriter.

I haven’t argued that Hillary’s books were ghostwritten – they were. Village wasn’t completely written by Feinman – it was Hillary’s concepts and she dictated a lot to Feinman who then did the job of ghost writer - she fleshed it out. Feinman has always been angry (probably with cause) that she wasn’t credited. How much you read regarding the ‘birthing’ of the book certainly probably has to do with sour grapes.

I don’t think that there is co-authorship credit on Going Rogue-is there? It looks like just Sarah Palin not even a “with”. The LOC/Publisher page certainly only lists Palin. (I just called)

So, reasons I don’t think that Palin would make a good leader of the free world.

Small town/small state/small nation. Her solutions are centered around a small town look at the world, and it appears she believes that her small town solutions can be reworked to work for world power. She did that as governor, and only had some success because she was dealing with an extremely small state. I think as a governor of a large, diverse, and more complex state, such as New York or California she would have failed.. And certainly on a national level it would be disastrous. Listening to her it appears that she thinks in that mind set.

I think she would appear weak and naive to other world powers. Perhaps perception, perhaps some reality, but very bad. I think we were somewhat a victim of that on 9-11. Bush certainly wasn’t perceived as a world leader – I think he was tested. I think Palin would be as well.

I don’t think she has much of a grasp of world history. You are destined to make the same mistakes if you don’t know about them.

I don’t think she has a good concept of federal law. I really would wonder if she does understand legal ramifications of certain actions.

I don’t think of her as someone who would be willing to compromise. It is a hard lesson to learn, but most laws are ‘compromise’.

The religion, abortion, gay rights, issues, etc. are all out there as well – however those are more ‘personal’ reasons in my case.

There are others - but Cal, since it appears you haven't embraced all that is Sarah, I would be interested in your reasons for 'caution'.

As far as bashing – yes, it is her viewpoint – without ‘equal’ time. It is bashing, because it is only her side of the story. From what little I have seen of the ‘bashing’ part she is quick to lay blame, but not quick to take responsibility.

Hey- attack prose – it is there. Sorry – I have done my fair share of it… hard to get away from it. But, if you read Palin’s book, it is trying to be more than a political memoir. Once again – read the first 30 pages – it attempts to find texture, atmosphere, it is trying to create a world. It failed in the first 30 pages. From what I read it certainly was trying to be more than a standard little political book to get your name out there. Almost as though the writer knew it was destined to actually be ‘read’ and so they tried to be a ‘real’ book. They would have been better served to be a political book, and not to have delved into 'writing'.

I still think of her as a quitter (another reason not to embrace her as a political candidate) – she should have stuck it out. My opinion. I think it did Alaska far more harm than good. She is an excellent spokesperson for Alaska. The wackiness of the lawsuits et al were dying down, and if she would have just worked hard – and not gone for the fame, she could have gotten her agenda through. The cult of Sarah could have been put on a back burner for 18 months, while she finished her job. However, I think she rather likes the cult of Sarah. Her and Obama do have something in common there.

Hillary may have cried, but she is tough as nails. Strong people do cry Cal – it isn’t a sign of weakness.

Small town/small state/small nation. Her solutions are centered around a small town look at the world...Listening to her it appears that she thinks in that mind set.

What exactly do you mean by "small town mindset"? That claim is meaningless unless you can qualify it. Why, specifically is a "small town mindset" a problem? What would be a better mindset in your view?

What substantive distinction is there between a "small state" or a large state that would necessitate a different approach to governing there; a different mindset? It is easy to draw an arbitrary distinction but can you show that it is more then arbitrary and is in fact relevant and substantive; can you demonstrate that it is something more then a red herring?

I don’t think that there is co-authorship credit on Going Rogue-is there? It looks like just Sarah Palin not even a “with”. The LOC/Publisher page certainly only lists Palin. (I just called)

I've already explained this. When you get time away from your long rants, you should really read it this time, instead of skimming/skipping it.

So, reasons I don’t think that Palin would make a good leader of the free world.

Small town/small state/small nation. Her solutions are centered around a small town look at the world, and it appears she believes that her small town solutions can be reworked to work for world power. She did that as governor, and only had some success because she was dealing with an extremely small state. I think as a governor of a large, diverse, and more complex state, such as New York or California she would have failed.. And certainly on a national level it would be disastrous. Listening to her it appears that she thinks in that mind set. Yeah. New York or California. Good examples, considering they're both on the way to being failed states while being governed by liberals. Nice job of moving the goalposts. Tell me, do you think Obama could have governed California or New York, based on his extensive experience as a community agitator?

I think she would appear weak and naive to other world powers. Perhaps perception, perhaps some reality, but very bad. I think we were somewhat a victim of that on 9-11. Bush certainly wasn’t perceived as a world leader – I think he was tested. I think Palin would be as well.Obama is considered a laughingstock by the rest of the world, especially after his apology tour. Next.

I don’t think she has much of a grasp of world history. You are destined to make the same mistakes if you don’t know about them.Obama definitely doesn't. He's still perpetuating the failed Jimmy Carter Appease the World strategy. Next.

I don’t think she has a good concept of federal law. I really would wonder if she does understand legal ramifications of certain actions. Give an example of this, please.

I don’t think of her as someone who would be willing to compromise. It is a hard lesson to learn, but most laws are ‘compromise’. Yeah, because Obama is a paragon of bipartisanship.:rolleyes:

Do you know anything about how she got the natural gas pipelilne deal done?

Next.

The religion, abortion, gay rights, issues, etc. are all out there as well – however those are more ‘personal’ reasons in my case.
She has the exact same position on gay marriage as Obama. Next.

As far as bashing – yes, it is her viewpoint – without ‘equal’ time. It is bashing, because it is only her side of the story. From what little I have seen of the ‘bashing’ part she is quick to lay blame, but not quick to take responsibility. You haven't even read this. Talk about swallowing talking points - why bother reading it, as Cal says. You're so myopic you couldn't possibly give her book a fair shake. I'll bet you haven't read one page, and somebody told you it was folksy.


I still think of her as a quitter (another reason not to embrace her as a political candidate) – she should have stuck it out. My opinion. Which is wrongly based on nonfactual talking points fed to you by the left.

I think it did Alaska far more harm than good. She is an excellent spokesperson for Alaska. The wackiness of the lawsuits et al were dying down, and if she would have just worked hard – and not gone for the fame, she could have gotten her agenda through. Wrong. They were just ramping up. She was nearly paralyzed with legal action and couldn't do any governing. Try and keep up.

The cult of Sarah could have been put on a back burner for 18 months, while she finished her job. However, I think she rather likes the cult of Sarah. Her and Obama do have something in common there. Aw, it's a cult. How cute. And your blind obedience to "The Won" isn't? That's a laugh. Tell me, do you know how many times Obama voted 'Present?'

Hillary may have cried, but she is tough as nails. Strong people do cry Cal – it isn’t a sign of weakness.Move those goalposts, why don't you. Hillary is a weakling. Had to beg Obie for campaign cash to pay off her debts. At least Sarah is earning hers.

I've already explained this. When you get time away from your long rants, you should really read it this time, instead of skimming/skipping it.

There isn't co-authorship credit - want to show it to me Foss - Cal claimed co-author - it certainly isn't registered that way.

Yeah. New York or California. Good examples, considering they're both on the way to being failed states while being governed by liberals. Nice job of moving the goalposts. Tell me, do you think Obama could have governed California or New York, based on his extensive experience as a community agitator?

Yep.

Obama is considered a laughingstock by the rest of the world, especially after his apology tour. Next.

Really - got quotes from those world leaders?

Obama definitely doesn't. He's still perpetuating the failed Jimmy Carter Appease the World strategy. Next.

Really - 30,000 troops to Afghanistan?

Give an example of this, please.

She is for a federal amendment that defines marriage - good luck with the constitutionality on that...

She has the exact same position on gay marriage as Obama. Next.

No she doesn't - see above -

You haven't even read this. Talk about swallowing talking points - why bother reading it, as Cal says. You're so myopic you couldn't possibly give her book a fair shake. I'll bet you haven't read one page, and somebody told you it was folksy.

Sorry - I have, again 30 pages or so. The first part deals with a visit to the state fair - and Palin talking with the people in the Right to Life booth - and talking points about the poster child for the group. There was a lot about her dissatisfaction with politics, however she also got in the little point she had an 85 (or something high like that) approval rating as governor. It was also at the state fair that McCain called her asking if she wanted to 'change history'.

Which is wrongly based on nonfactual talking points fed to you by the left.
Wrong. They were just ramping up. She was nearly paralyzed with legal action and couldn't do any governing. Try and keep up.

Really - 15 ethics complaints - small potatoes Foss...

Aw, it's a cult. How cute. And your blind obedience to "The Won" isn't? That's a laugh. Tell me, do you know how many times Obama voted 'Present?'

Move those goalposts, why don't you. Hillary is a weakling. Had to beg Obie for campaign cash to pay off her debts. At least Sarah is earning hers.

I have no blind obedience to Obama - I think he has been a somewhat so-so president to this point. He seems to be taking a long time finding his way around, and how to deal with the Hill. And yes, I know how many times he voted 'present', odd I also know what a vote like that means - something you can't seem to comprehend (this has been discussed previously).

Sarah has no campaign debt - duh... Sarah contributed nothing monetarily. I believe Hillary loaned her campaign about 13 million dollars - which she wasn't repaid, she has written it off.

Hillary couldn't take money from Obama's campaign - it is against the law. She can (and did) ask for help for fundraising from him, joint appeals and joint fundraisers, but she didn't get any money directly from his campaign - federal finance law prohibits that. Almost always the winning candidate offers to do whatever they can do legally to help pay down the debt of the losing candidate, Hillary asked for Obama's help fundraising so she could repay those who worked for her - not for her debt.

And Hillary is not weak.

What exactly do you mean by "small town mindset"? That claim is meaningless unless you can qualify it. Why, specifically is a "small town mindset" a problem? What would be a better mindset in your view?

What substantive distinction is there between a "small state" or a large state that would necessitate a different approach to governing there; a different mindset? It is easy to draw an arbitrary distinction but can you show that it is more then arbitrary and is in fact relevant and substantive; can you demonstrate that it is something more then a red herring?

Can you govern Sweden the same that you govern the US? Can you govern Saudi Arabia the same way you govern China? Fundamental rights don't change - but sheer scope of size does change how you rule, and the position you take in the world hierarchy. And the type of policy that gets enacted.

And shag - you don't understand small town mindset?

you don't understand small town mindset?


Explain it to me. Specifically, what is it about that mindset that makes it incapable of governing on a larger scale?

....there's so much to respond to, but I think the small mind set should be addressed first?

Foxpaws, you were a supporter of Bill Clinton . What kind of mindset did he have?

Clinton was from born and raised in Arkansas.
Prior to being President, he spent his entire adult life in Arkansas politics, ultimately becoming Governor of Arkansas, the youngest governor in the country....then ex-governor..and then governor again.

So what is this "small town mindset" you're talking about.
Is it because Clinton went to an Ivy league school that exempts him from this "mindset" that you're critical of?

Do people from the middle of the country or up North, those who didn't go to ivy league schools, lack the sophistication necessary to be President? Is that a position reserved for well indoctrinated Yale and Harvard crowd alone?

Your avatar belies your dishonest words.

really? read careful. NO GODS. plural. if i know christianity, it's about 1 god. well, actually 2 i guess. fine. your right.
although there have been hundreds in known history.

There isn't co-authorship credit - want to show it to me Foss - Cal claimed co-author - it certainly isn't registered that way.

I'm not defending his claim, I'm refuting your claim of a ghost writer. Try and keep up.


Yep.Naive.


Really - got quotes from those world leaders?
Yep. How many will suffice (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html)?


Really - 30,000 troops to Afghanistan?Really? Considering the GENERAL ON THE GROUND requested more, and it took Obama over 100 days to 'dither?'

She is for a federal amendment that defines marriage - good luck with the constitutionality on that...ZZZZZ...Obama is for a healthcare plan that FORCES people to buy something whether they want it or not.

Really - 15 ethics complaints - small potatoes Foss...Really - moving the goalposts - how many have you had?

I have no blind obedience to Obama - I think he has been a somewhat so-so president to this point. He seems to be taking a long time finding his way around, and how to deal with the Hill. And yes, I know how many times he voted 'present', odd I also know what a vote like that means - something you can't seem to comprehend (this has been discussed previously).It means he doesn't take a stand on the issue. Period.

Sarah has no campaign debt - duh... Sarah contributed nothing monetarily. I believe Hillary loaned her campaign about 13 million dollars - which she wasn't repaid, she has written it off. See my thread about Mark Penn. You FAIL.

Hillary couldn't take money from Obama's campaign - it is against the law. She can (and did) ask for help for fundraising from him, joint appeals and joint fundraisers, but she didn't get any money directly from his campaign - federal finance law prohibits that. Almost always the winning candidate offers to do whatever they can do legally to help pay down the debt of the losing candidate, Hillary asked for Obama's help fundraising so she could repay those who worked for her - not for her debt.Since when does illegality stop a Democrat?

And Hillary is not weak.Yes she is. I guess we disagree, but you certainly haven't made any progress in proving that point.

really? read careful. NO GODS. plural. if i know christianity, it's about 1 god. well, actually 2 i guess. fine. your right.
although there have been hundreds in known history.Actually, based on the context of your many posts, your interpretation would be - NO GODS. PERIOD. Nice try backpedaling, though.

Back to your bridge, troll, you're off topic.

Explain it to me. Specifically, what is it about that mindset that makes it incapable of governing on a larger scale?She won't answer. She only thinks it's cool to ask you if you know what it is, so she can mock you for not knowing. As if she even knows. :rolleyes:

I'm not defending his claim, I'm refuting your claim of a ghost writer. Try and keep up.

Are you saying that there wasn't a ghost writer now? I am trying to keep up - and I very specifically addressed Cal when I talked about the co-authorship detail. So, what are you exactly claiming regarding a ghost writer Foss?

Yep. How many will suffice?

Your quote from Sarkozy is from October of last year - he has since praised (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/sarko-to-obama.html) Obama - some say 'gushing' -

Got more like that one Foss?

Really? Considering the GENERAL ON THE GROUND requested more, and it took Obama over 100 days to 'dither?'
I would rather Obama take his time - and create a true plan with his generals than commit troops without any idea of what you do when you get there. We have been there, done that with Bush, we don't need to do it again. At least the man has learned from history.

ZZZZZ...Obama is for a healthcare plan that FORCES people to buy something whether they want it or not.

The government has forced people to do things for a long time - and they have stood the constitutionality test... I will be interested to see if the 'must have insurance' part will. I actually hope it doesn't, but it is at least a gray area. Federally defining marriage isn't a gray area - it is unconstitutional.

Really - moving the goalposts - how many have you had?

I haven't had any lawsuits against me Foss... heck - did you know that there was a suit filed against President Reagan by God... believe me, once you get to the big game - there are a ton of lawsuits filed all the time. If she can't handle these, it will be difficult for her to move into a more national role.

It means he doesn't take a stand on the issue. Period.

Usually it means that the elected official agrees with the original bill, but isn't comfortable with the 'amendments' that have tacked on. Sort of like wanting a bill to go through congress - but you can't back all the pork that gets tagged onto it.

See my thread about Mark Penn. You FAIL.
Since when does illegality stop a Democrat?

Since illegality has stopped Republicans Foss...;)

Since no money came from Obama's campaign to pay Hillary's debts. Penn may have been given a contract from the government - I am not sure how that contract was awarded. His firm has gotten contracts in the past, this might be similar to those.

Yes she is. I guess we disagree, but you certainly haven't made any progress in proving that point.

And you have posted a clip of her crying. Nice proof...

wow - I have opened a can of worms with this one... 'small town mindset'

You don't have to be from a small town to have a small town mindset - I know people from LA who have a small town mindset... I know people who went to Yale who have a small town mindset. I know people who live in towns that have less than 3,000 who don't have small town mindset, along with people who barely graduated from high school who don't have small town mindset. So it isn't about people from a certain part of the country, or from certain sized towns, or with certain types of education - Do you have that part? It doesn't define where you are from, your education...

So, let's start with something - I asked shag this:

Can you govern Sweden the same that you govern the US? Can you govern Saudi Arabia the same way you govern China? Fundamental rights don't change - but sheer scope of size does change how you rule, and the position you take in the world hierarchy. And the type of policy that gets enacted.

So, do you think you can govern all people in all areas of the world exactly the same?

I believe Hillary loaned her campaign about 13 million dollars - which she wasn't repaid, she has written it off.

What a bald-faced lie! Come on, you can do better than that. Show me her tax statements where she wrote it off.

And this crap about Obama writing his speeches; that is b.s. too.

In 2009 Jon Favreau was named a White House Staff member and given the position of “Director of Speechwriting” for Obama. You sooo totally fail again.

You really want to sit and tell us all how great Obama is and how he writes his speeches and all that?

I say you are a paid propagandist for the Obama administration.

I’ve had enough. Gonna take a break from all this. Bye.

What a bald-faced lie! Come on, you can do better than that. Show me her tax statements where she wrote it off.

From CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/12/22/politics/main4683552.shtml)

And this crap about Obama writing his speeches; that is b.s. too.

In 2009 Jon Favreau was named a White House Staff member and given the position of “Director of Speechwriting” for Obama. You sooo totally fail again.

You really want to sit and tell us all how great Obama is and how he writes his speeches and all that?

I say you are a paid propagandist for the Obama administration.

I’ve had enough. Gonna take a break from all this. Bye.

hummm- I don't think I have claimed Obama writes his speeches - I don't know if he does or doesn't MM - Wow - paid propagandist that might reach a dozen people - really?

hummm- I don't think I have claimed Obama writes his speeches

I'll leave you with these two thoughts because my head exploded and I have to pick up all the brain matter.

But, weren't you all over Obama for 'supposedly' having a ghost writer - that it was somehow bad? I doubt if he did - once again no paper trail

You doubt Obama had a ghost writer. Guess that means you think he wrote the stuff himself. Same as for his speeches. That Obama has all this time in between golf and basketball to write these earth-moving speeches. Cowdung.

Lastly...

This sums up my feelings of Obama the best way I could ever express them... Have fun. Just burnt out seeing this Country go in the crapper along with my kids future.

A TWAP IS A MALADJUSTED ZERO (http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/a-twap-is-a-maladjusted-zero/#more-433)

by Bridgette
“A Celebration of the Most Vacuous Campaign and Presidency in American History” is the headline on the website where a photo of this poster was found.

Los Angeles, the home of the Obama White Face Poster is again a happening place for an outspoken and anonymous artist. Posters on billboards are popping up all over LA. All the Who’s from Whoville are involved: Who designed it? Who is plastering these posters all over town? Who is printing them? Then there are the what’s. What does the poster suggest? And finally, what does “TWAP” mean?

Obama is seen as a Medieval Court Jester with the label of “TWAP”. The artist doesn’t define TWAP, so no one except for him or her knows the meaning of TWAP. One can certainly see that the artist shows his displeasure and discontent with the inexperienced usurper in Our House.
While Obama is seen as a jester because of the hat he wears, other names such as joker, jokester, fool, clown, comedian, entertainer, comic, prankster, and buffoon are a few other applicable plays on the word jester. Defining their commonalities, these characters are out to entertain, trick, hoodwink, dupe, con, deceive, bamboozle or pull the wool over our eyes. These various job descriptions seem most appropriate and fitting for the poser on the poster.

Let’s look at a little history of Jesters. In medieval times, British and European monarchies employed these talented people to entertain the king, queen, their court, and guests. Most jesters would use music, juggling, clowning, story and riddle telling, to entertain their royal masters. The fool enjoyed some status among a royal household, but not much. Most often he was considered the lowest of the low within the courts hierarchy. Oft times, he was the one to deliver news to the king that others were afraid to do for fear of being killed or thrown into a dungeon. Without real status in the royal household, sometimes the king used the jester as a sounding board when he had a difficult decision to make. The jester was perceived as having no ambition to overthrow the king, so he could be trusted during those times.

Jesters usually wore brightly colored, often gaudy, costumes with hats. One such costume was a coat adorned with a donkey’s tail, and a hood decorated with an ass’s ears. The identifiable jester hats were made of cloth and were triangular in shape with three points trimmed with jingle bells. According to Wiki, this hat also represented the donkey’s ears and tail. Perhaps the artist thought that the yellow and orange hat was suitable to represent both the hat wearer and the Democratic party. Our jester in chief does seem lacking, and the ass hat analogy certainly fits. One might go a step further and say that the majority party are a group of Jack’s. Then again, my interpretation might be wrong. Instead of seeing a jester in the poster, perhaps it is a fool.

Jesters were also called fools by their masters and others. The root of the word “fool” is from the Latin word “follis” that means “Bag of Wind” or that which contains air or breath. (Now we’re getting somewhere!).

In Tarot cards, the Fool is often shown as a man dancing along a mountain side with a dog nipping at his heels egging him on. The fool is totally oblivious to the cliff being there, and it looks like he will dance right off the edge ending in his demise. When I interpret the Fool in a reading, he is seen as one who sees not ahead or behind, nor what he is doing or where he is going. In other words, it is a card depicting pure folly with looming, far-reaching, disastrous consequences ahead. Thus far, if I am analyzing this correctly, the poster depicts a donkey eared clown who is a bag of wind that doesn’t know what he is doing. Do you think I am evaluating this correctly?

Also in the tarot, the Fool card is signified by the number 0. Mathematically, zero plus any number equals zero, and zero multiplied by anything also equals zero. Easily, we can see that Zero is nothing and can never be anything but zero. No matter what is added to it, the result will always be the same, zero. In other words, Zero has no substance. I think this is all adding up.

Just to be sure my calculations or definitions are correct, Wiki , the well known website, was consulted for their expert judgment on the subject of zero. “As a digit, 0 is used as a place holder.” Okay, that works, zero is holding onto and is in possession of our place. In our English language “0″ can be called zero, oh, null, nil, or nought, depending on the context. Well, I certainly think this sums it up. The big Oh is really a zero, null and nill. I could not have said it better.

Surprisingly, The Urban Dictionary contains six definitions of TWAP. The highest one rated by its users was that TWAP is an acronym for “The Worst American President “. They even used the word in a sentence, “Obama is a TWAP”.

Therefore, using the above definitions, symbolism and interpretations, the following is most likely a true and simple analysis of the TWAP poster. Obviously, the poster depicts a maladjusted jester who is a donkey-eared bag of wind who doesn’t know what the heck he is doing. His talent lies in being a consummate liar and story teller. He lives up to those job descriptions by using trickery, duping, conning, deceiving, and fabricating. Eventually, he might go off the deep end, and may even end up in a dungeon. Moreover, he is a fool whose talent is laughable, and who will never add up to anything other than zero. He is considered null, nil and nought. Finally, the pompous, arrogant jester is a TWAP!

The game of “TWAP” begins. What do you think TWAP means?

hummm- I don't think I have claimed Obama writes his speeches

I'll leave you with these two thoughts because my head exploded and I have to pick up all the brain matter.

But, weren't you all over Obama for 'supposedly' having a ghost writer - that it was somehow bad? I doubt if he did - once again no paper trail

You doubt Obama had a ghost writer? Guess that means you think he wrote the stuff himself. Same as for his speeches. That Obama has all this time in between golf and basketball to write these earth-moving speeches. Cowdung.

Lastly...

This sums up my feelings of Obama the best way I could ever express them... Have fun. Just burnt out seeing this Country go in the crapper along with my kids future.

A TWAP IS A MALADJUSTED ZERO (http://wtpotus.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/a-twap-is-a-maladjusted-zero/#more-433)

by Bridgette
“A Celebration of the Most Vacuous Campaign and Presidency in American History” is the headline on the website where a photo of this poster was found.

Los Angeles, the home of the Obama White Face Poster is again a happening place for an outspoken and anonymous artist. Posters on billboards are popping up all over LA. All the Who’s from Whoville are involved: Who designed it? Who is plastering these posters all over town? Who is printing them? Then there are the what’s. What does the poster suggest? And finally, what does “TWAP” mean?

Obama is seen as a Medieval Court Jester with the label of “TWAP”. The artist doesn’t define TWAP, so no one except for him or her knows the meaning of TWAP. One can certainly see that the artist shows his displeasure and discontent with the inexperienced usurper in Our House.
While Obama is seen as a jester because of the hat he wears, other names such as joker, jokester, fool, clown, comedian, entertainer, comic, prankster, and buffoon are a few other applicable plays on the word jester. Defining their commonalities, these characters are out to entertain, trick, hoodwink, dupe, con, deceive, bamboozle or pull the wool over our eyes. These various job descriptions seem most appropriate and fitting for the poser on the poster.

Let’s look at a little history of Jesters. In medieval times, British and European monarchies employed these talented people to entertain the king, queen, their court, and guests. Most jesters would use music, juggling, clowning, story and riddle telling, to entertain their royal masters. The fool enjoyed some status among a royal household, but not much. Most often he was considered the lowest of the low within the courts hierarchy. Oft times, he was the one to deliver news to the king that others were afraid to do for fear of being killed or thrown into a dungeon. Without real status in the royal household, sometimes the king used the jester as a sounding board when he had a difficult decision to make. The jester was perceived as having no ambition to overthrow the king, so he could be trusted during those times.

Jesters usually wore brightly colored, often gaudy, costumes with hats. One such costume was a coat adorned with a donkey’s tail, and a hood decorated with an ass’s ears. The identifiable jester hats were made of cloth and were triangular in shape with three points trimmed with jingle bells. According to Wiki, this hat also represented the donkey’s ears and tail. Perhaps the artist thought that the yellow and orange hat was suitable to represent both the hat wearer and the Democratic party. Our jester in chief does seem lacking, and the ass hat analogy certainly fits. One might go a step further and say that the majority party are a group of Jack’s. Then again, my interpretation might be wrong. Instead of seeing a jester in the poster, perhaps it is a fool.

Jesters were also called fools by their masters and others. The root of the word “fool” is from the Latin word “follis” that means “Bag of Wind” or that which contains air or breath. (Now we’re getting somewhere!).

In Tarot cards, the Fool is often shown as a man dancing along a mountain side with a dog nipping at his heels egging him on. The fool is totally oblivious to the cliff being there, and it looks like he will dance right off the edge ending in his demise. When I interpret the Fool in a reading, he is seen as one who sees not ahead or behind, nor what he is doing or where he is going. In other words, it is a card depicting pure folly with looming, far-reaching, disastrous consequences ahead. Thus far, if I am analyzing this correctly, the poster depicts a donkey eared clown who is a bag of wind that doesn’t know what he is doing. Do you think I am evaluating this correctly?

Also in the tarot, the Fool card is signified by the number 0. Mathematically, zero plus any number equals zero, and zero multiplied by anything also equals zero. Easily, we can see that Zero is nothing and can never be anything but zero. No matter what is added to it, the result will always be the same, zero. In other words, Zero has no substance. I think this is all adding up.

Just to be sure my calculations or definitions are correct, Wiki , the well known website, was consulted for their expert judgment on the subject of zero. “As a digit, 0 is used as a place holder.” Okay, that works, zero is holding onto and is in possession of our place. In our English language “0″ can be called zero, oh, null, nil, or nought, depending on the context. Well, I certainly think this sums it up. The big Oh is really a zero, null and nill. I could not have said it better.

Surprisingly, The Urban Dictionary contains six definitions of TWAP. The highest one rated by its users was that TWAP is an acronym for “The Worst American President “. They even used the word in a sentence, “Obama is a TWAP”.

Therefore, using the above definitions, symbolism and interpretations, the following is most likely a true and simple analysis of the TWAP poster. Obviously, the poster depicts a maladjusted jester who is a donkey-eared bag of wind who doesn’t know what the heck he is doing. His talent lies in being a consummate liar and story teller. He lives up to those job descriptions by using trickery, duping, conning, deceiving, and fabricating. Eventually, he might go off the deep end, and may even end up in a dungeon. Moreover, he is a fool whose talent is laughable, and who will never add up to anything other than zero. He is considered null, nil and nought. Finally, the pompous, arrogant jester is a TWAP!

The game of “TWAP” begins. What do you think TWAP means?

I'll leave you with these two thoughts because my head exploded and I have to pick up all the brain matter.

You doubt Obama had a ghost writer? Guess that means you think he wrote the stuff himself. Same as for his speeches. That Obama has all this time in between golf and basketball to write these earth-moving speeches. Cowdung.

I don't think Obama did - he had editors - yes, but I don't think on his first book he had a ghost writer... He could have, but, I haven't seen anything that really points in that direction

And there is a huge difference between writing speeches when you are under the time constraints of being president and writing a book over time. Many presidents don't write their speeches at all, some write only the 'important' ones, others take speeches written for them and red line them to the point that you are looking a nothing but a sea of red. I don't know what Obama does as far as his speech writing. Reagan wrote most of his speeches, especially early in his career. In the latter part of his presidency you can see the hand of a speech writer in more of his speeches. They 'sound' different. Clinton wrote what he thought were going to be 'important' speeches - he ran them by many people - but, those were his words. Lesser speeches were delegated. I don't know about Bush - his speeches often seemed written for him.

Glad you were able to get the Twap photo in on the second posting MM

And that I was able to clear up that little bit about Hillary's debt...

Oh, don't worry about all those brain cells - the question is - where they being used anyway? ;) (just being silly here - I couldn't resist...)

So, let's start with something - I asked shag this:

Can you govern Sweden the same that you govern the US? Can you govern Saudi Arabia the same way you govern China? Fundamental rights don't change - but sheer scope of size does change how you rule, and the position you take in the world hierarchy. And the type of policy that gets enacted.

So, do you think you can govern all people in all areas of the world exactly the same?

No, let's not start with that. I asked a question to start all this off and you have yet to answer it. Instead you dodged with another question.

Besides, your "question" re-focuses the debate. We were not talking about a governing "approach" but a mindset which you implied made Palin incapable of governing on a large scale. If you cannot show how that mindset prevents her being able to govern on a larger scale, then your claim is nothing more then sophistry.

BTW, an arrogant elitist outlook is also not dependent on education or where you were raised. I know plenty of people without any college education who have an elitist outlook.

No, let's not start with that. I asked a question to start all this off and you have yet to answer it. Instead you dodged with another question.

Besides, your "question" re-focuses the debate. We were not talking about a governing "approach" but a mindset which you implied made Palin incapable of governing on a large scale. If you cannot show how that mindset prevents her being able to govern on a larger scale, then your claim is nothing more then sophistry.

BTW, an arrogant elitist outlook is also not dependent on education or where you were raised. I know plenty of people without any college education who have an elitist outlook.

No - it doesn't refocus the debate Shag - it helps define what small town mindset is. Since Cal was all over the idea that it might have to do with geographical location or education I needed to clear that up, that it doesn't - and we also need to clear up if you realize you can't govern all areas of the world in the same manner - I have trying to help define some parameters here. In the context I used it with Palin it does deal with how I believe she would govern. We were talking about why I don't think she would make a good president. One of the reasons is because I think she would govern with a small town mindset.

So, do you think you can govern all areas of the world exactly the same? That is a question that deals with governing with a small town mindset...

No - it doesn't refocus the debate Shag - it helps define what small town mindset is.

Your question blurs the distinction between an "approach" and a "mindset"; falsely equating the two. The same mindset can (and usually does) apply different approaches to different situations. Your question assumes it applies the same approach to different situation (otherwise, no inference can be drawn about a "mindset" by your question).

You are dodging again. If you can't answer the question then you pretty well confirm that your point is mere elitist smearing.

Both Cal and I have asked you the same thing and you have dodged the question; what, specifically, do you mean by a "small town mindset"? What qualities make it up and what, specifically, prevents it from being able to govern on a large scale?

Your question blurs the distinction between an "approach" and a "mindset"; falsely equating the two. The same mindset can (and usually does) apply different approaches to different situations. Your question assumes it applies the same approach to different situation (otherwise, no inference can be drawn about a "mindset" by your question).

You are dodging again. If you can't answer the question then you pretty well confirm that your point is mere elitist smearing.

Both Cal and I have asked you the same thing and you have dodged the question; what, specifically, do you mean by a "small town mindset"? What qualities make it up and what, specifically, prevents it from being able to govern on a large scale?

So, would it be ok with your "oh look, she is being an elitist" labeling self, shag, if I deal with small town mindset as it pertains to governing a country? It is of no consequence if Palin has small town mindset regarding buying shoes...

And once again it has nothing to do with where you are from or what your education is - got that?????

So, would it be ok with your "oh look, she is being an elitist" labeling self, shag, if I deal with small town mindset as it pertains to governing a country? It is of no consequence if Palin has small town mindset regarding buying shoes...

And once again it has nothing to do with where you are from or what your education is - got that?????

What, specifically do you mean by "small town mindset"?

Quit dodging and answer the question, please...

I told you she wouldn't answer it.

She blurted it out as a slight to (folksy) Palin and now she realizes she can't back it up.

Are you saying that there wasn't a ghost writer now? I am trying to keep up - and I very specifically addressed Cal when I talked about the co-authorship detail. So, what are you exactly claiming regarding a ghost writer Foss?

Again, go back and read. Clearly you're stalling, trying to make me repeat myself. Not gonna happen. You're a waste of time.



Your quote from Sarkozy is from October of last year - he has since praised (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/04/sarko-to-obama.html) Obama - some say 'gushing' -

Got more like that one Foss?Moving the goalposts again.


I would rather Obama take his time - and create a true plan with his generals than commit troops without any idea of what you do when you get there. We have been there, done that with Bush, we don't need to do it again. At least the man has learned from history. You're really a moron, aren't you? First, Bush's surge PROVED that more troops would be successful, DESPITE Obama's VERBAL OPPOSITION AND PREDICTION THAT THE SURGE WOULD FAIL.

Second, McChrystal said he needed the troops NOW - and Obama didn't want to make a decision because he wanted to pass his stupid healthcare takeover and didn't want to piss off his base. Try and keep up.


The government has forced people to do things for a long time - and they have stood the constitutionality test... I will be interested to see if the 'must have insurance' part will. I actually hope it doesn't, but it is at least a gray area. Federally defining marriage isn't a gray area - it is unconstitutional. Blah blah blah...Dodging the issue. Your boy Obama is a statist and he's clearly pushing an unconstitutional bill. This latest blah from you doesn't mean anything.

I haven't had any lawsuits against me Foss... heck - did you know that there was a suit filed against President Reagan by God... believe me, once you get to the big game - there are a ton of lawsuits filed all the time. If she can't handle these, it will be difficult for her to move into a more national role.Uh huh. You can't file frivolous lawsuits against the President like you can according to Alaska law. There's a provision that allows the governor to be sued for anything. Try and keep up.


Usually it means that the elected official agrees with the original bill, but isn't comfortable with the 'amendments' that have tacked on. Sort of like wanting a bill to go through congress - but you can't back all the pork that gets tagged onto it.Well he was uncomfortable over 100 times in his SHORT tenure. What it left him with was NO voting record.

Since illegality has stopped Republicans Foss...;) Weak.

Since no money came from Obama's campaign to pay Hillary's debts. Penn may have been given a contract from the government - I am not sure how that contract was awarded. His firm has gotten contracts in the past, this might be similar to those. Not good at connecting dots, are you? Or is it a case of denial + myopia? :rolleyes:

And you have posted a clip of her crying. Nice proof...No, I didn't. But it's good evidence, far more than you've done, Miss Proof by Assertion. :rolleyes:

The government has forced people to do things for a long time - and they have stood the constitutionality test... I will be interested to see if the 'must have insurance' part will. I actually hope it doesn't, but it is at least a gray area. Federally defining marriage isn't a gray area - it is unconstitutional.

Federally defining marriage through a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is unconstitutional?!

Also, can you name some things that the government forces people to do that have stood the "constitutionality test"? What do you consider to be the "constitutionality test"?

Also, can you show me how the individual mandate in the healthcare bill is somehow in a "gray area" as to it's constitutionality?

Federally defining marriage through a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT is unconstitutional?!
:bowrofl:

Dang, I missed that one Shag, good catch. She's a propagandist, dyed in the wool.

*owned*

What, specifically do you mean by "small town mindset"?

Quit dodging and answer the question, please...

And do you understand you can have a small town mindset in one area and not have it define who you are? You have a tendency to black and white everything shag- this isn't.... and until you get out of this whole definition mode - forget it - I need gray on this - and you don't understand gray.

:bowrofl:

Dang, I missed that one Shag, good catch. She's a propagandist, dyed in the wool.

*owned*

Baaaaa - Palin wants a amendment - but that amendment would never get through any sort of vetting process - it would be deemed unconstitutional before it got out of committee.

You could want an amendment that said that white men had to be slaves to women - it wouldn't get through committee because it would be deemed unconstitutional - drat.... :)

Again, go back and read. Clearly you're stalling, trying to make me repeat myself. Not gonna happen. You're a waste of time.

So - you think that going to the publishing house and sitting around and working on the drafts means she didn't have a ghost writer? I just want a statement from you Foss - this should be easy - ghostwriter - yes or no?

Moving the goalposts again.

Nope - proved quote didn't matter - leader has changed his mind... got another one - I am waiting - you were the one that asked how many would suffice - lets say more than zero...


You're really a moron, aren't you? First, Bush's surge PROVED that more troops would be successful, DESPITE Obama's VERBAL OPPOSITION AND PREDICTION THAT THE SURGE WOULD FAIL.

Second, McChrystal said he needed the troops NOW - and Obama didn't want to make a decision because he wanted to pass his stupid healthcare takeover and didn't want to piss off his base. Try and keep up.

You just can't get over he is sending troops can you - you will try anything to discredit him. Even when he does something that you praised Bush for, you find excuses...

Blah blah blah...Dodging the issue. Your boy Obama is a statist and he's clearly pushing an unconstitutional bill. This latest blah from you doesn't mean anything.

So - don't have anything - huh?

Uh huh. You can't file frivolous lawsuits against the President like you can according to Alaska law. There's a provision that allows the governor to be sued for anything. Try and keep up.

So explain the lawsuit filed against Reagan from God...

Well he was uncomfortable over 100 times in his SHORT tenure. What it left him with was NO voting record.

short - how many things did he vote on Foss - want a clue - far more than 10x that 100...

Weak.
Not good at connecting dots, are you? Or is it a case of denial + myopia? :rolleyes:

Or is it a case of blame them for everything - how many contracts did Reagan, Clinton, Bush have out that paid off friends, campaign contributors, et al? For you it is a case of naivety - you just don't understand how the world of politics goes round - do you foss.

No, I didn't. But it's good evidence, far more than you've done, Miss Proof by Assertion. :rolleyes:

Sorry - that was Cal - should have checked better -

I know her - she is tough - sorry if you don't believe me. I suppose your definition of tough is moose hunting - I don't know. I know tough broads - Hillary is one.

So - you think that going to the publishing house and sitting around and working on the drafts means she didn't have a ghost writer? I just want a statement from you Foss - this should be easy - ghostwriter - yes or no?
I've already answered this, so it should be easy for you. Lazy.


Nope - proved quote didn't matter - leader has changed his mind... got another one - I am waiting - you were the one that asked how many would suffice - lets say more than zero...
How do you know he changed his mind? How would that change the fact that he mocked Obama? No, you're moving the goalposts.

So explain the lawsuit filed against Reagan from God...No, you explain it. And while you're at it, cite that red herring, exception proves the rule case.

You just can't get over he is sending troops can you - you will try anything to discredit him. Even when he does something that you praised Bush for, you find excuses...A fascinating response, fox, really, considering that you are dodging the truth. Your boy is a vacillator. Deal with it.


Or is it a case of blame them for everything - how many contracts did Reagan, Clinton, Bush have out that paid off friends, campaign contributors, et al? For you it is a case of naivety - you just don't understand how the world of politics goes round - do you foss. Talk about conspiracy theories. Do you just pull this stuff out of thin air? Talk about irrelevant. :rolleyes:

Did Reagan use government tax revenue to pay off campaign debts for his competitors?

Sorry - that was Cal - should have checked better -Not surprising. You still haven't read my post that explained that Palin's 'ghost writer' was actually a collaborator.

You could want an amendment that said that white men had to be slaves to women - it wouldn't get through committee because it would be deemed unconstitutional - drat.... :)

You really don't understand what "constitutional" means, do you. A constitutional amendment can not be "unconstitutional".

And do you understand you can have a small town mindset in one area and not have it define who you are?

Until you can explain it in concrete terms, no one can understand what you mean by a "small town mindset".


You have a tendency to black and white everything shag- this isn't.... and until you get out of this whole definition mode - forget it - I need gray on this - and you don't understand gray.


I understand "gray" and I understand when someone is trying to exaggerate or down right manufacture a false "gray" area. You said it yourself, you "need gray on this". In other words, your criticism is only effective when it is vague and undefined. When critically examined you can't demonstrate any substance to it.

Your critique is a deceptive smear, nothing more...

And do you understand you can have a small town mindset in one area and not have it define who you are? Why do you refuse to define what you mean by this term? :confused:

Baaaaa - Palin wants a amendment - but that amendment would never get through any sort of vetting process - it would be deemed unconstitutional before it got out of committee.

You could want an amendment that said that white men had to be slaves to women - it wouldn't get through committee because it would be deemed unconstitutional - drat.... :)Ignorant rambling troll is ignorant and rambling.

Actually, based on the context of your many posts, your interpretation would be - NO GODS. PERIOD. Nice try backpedaling, though.
so if no god's period, how would that make me a christian hater?
i'm equal opportunity. nice weaseling yourself.
Back to your bridge, troll, you're off topic.
i'm just replying. i didn't start it. can't be off topic on an off topic reply, can i.

I suppose a small town mindset could be described as more friendly and easygoing than the big town mindset which is more MYOB.
In smaller towns people all (mostly) know each other better which makes them more like a big family.
Small towns usually have less problems to deal with compared to bigger urban areas.
Maybe that's where the lightweight stereotype comes from.
Palin is touring smaller cities promoting her book (and herself) as that's most comfortable for her.
She seems to be working at it and improving her rhetoric.
I think she looked good posting an oped in the Washington Post criticising Al Gore and the approach to climate change.
Didn't see any ditziness in her of recent.
She's become the republican sound bite in a good way.

I'm starting to warm up :p to her :eek: :D

I suppose a small town mindset could be described as more friendly and easygoing than the big town mindset which is more MYOB.
In smaller towns people all (mostly) know each other better which makes them more like a big family.
Small towns usually have less problems to deal with compared to bigger urban areas.
Maybe that's where the lightweight stereotype comes from.
Palin is touring smaller cities promoting her book (and herself) as that's most comfortable for her.
She seems to be working at it and improving her rhetoric.
I think she looked good posting an oped in the Washington Post criticising Al Gore and the approach to climate change.
Didn't see any ditziness in her of recent.
She's become the republican sound bite in a good way.

I'm starting to warm up :p to her :eek: :D

I don't see anything in there that would prevent someone with that mindset from governing at a larger level. Just an elitist stereotype, as you seemed to allude to...

"Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, & they are tied to their country & wedded to it's liberty & interests by the most lasting bonds."

I suppose a small town mindset could be described as more friendly and easygoing than the big town mindset which is more MYOB.
In smaller towns people all (mostly) know each other better which makes them more like a big family.
Small towns usually have less problems to deal with compared to bigger urban areas.
Maybe that's where the lightweight stereotype comes from.
Palin is touring smaller cities promoting her book (and herself) as that's most comfortable for her.
She seems to be working at it and improving her rhetoric.
I think she looked good posting an oped in the Washington Post criticising Al Gore and the approach to climate change.
Didn't see any ditziness in her of recent.
She's become the republican sound bite in a good way.

I'm starting to warm up :p to her :eek: :DInteresting thoughts, truly. Makes sense.

And of course, crickets from foxpaws...:rolleyes: